KFS' GUT-test

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Dear JHM,

Forget the argue,

Forget what argue???




Regarding the calculations I offered you:
What you ask for now is calculations USING the method but for several reasons I cannot not do that.
winkel is far better suited.

I offered to calculate the results in units, for winkel's "proof-of-positive-ending" that he posted above, because it lacks that IMO vital information.
At least he said "this is my result" when he posted the table...
(The table is in Reply #23 on page 2 in this thread)

As he also said: "[highlight]all the green sectors are better than they should[/highlight]", I will only calculate the [highlight]green[/highlight] ones:

5-27- 5: Bet  5u x      29 =       -145u, Won 36u x       4 =       +144u ==> Net:       -1u
5-28- 4: Bet  5u x      22 =       -110u, Won 36u x       4 =       +144u ==> Net:      +34u
6-25- 6: Bet  6u x     310 =     -1,860u, Won 36u x      53 =     +1,908u ==> Net:      +48u
7-23- 7: Bet  7u x   1,980 =    -13,860u, Won 36u x     376 =    +13,536u ==> Net:     -324u
7-24- 6: Bet  7u x   2,313 =    -16,191u, Won 36u x     446 =    +16,056u ==> Net:     -135u
8-21- 8: Bet  8u x   7,317 =    -58,536u, Won 36u x   1,624 =    +58,464u ==> Net:      -72u
8-22- 7: Bet  8u x  12,930 =   -103,440u, Won 36u x   2,871 =   +103,356u ==> Net:      -84u
9-20- 8: Bet  9u x  46,436 =   -417,924u, Won 36u x  11,330 =   +407,880u ==> Net:  -10,044u
10-17-10: Bet 10u x  32,680 =   -326,800u, Won 36u x   8,835 =   +318,060u ==> Net:   -8,740u
10-18- 9: Bet 10u x 109,235 = -1,092,350u, Won 36u x  29,531 = +1,063,116u ==> Net:  -29,234u
11-15-11: Bet 11u x  36,489 =   -401,379u, Won 36u x  10,962 =   +394,632u ==> Net:   -6,747u
11-16-10: Bet 11u x 166,722 = -1,833,924u, Won 36u x  49,612 = +1,786,032u ==> Net:  -47,892u
12-13-12: Bet 12u x  26,292 =   -315,504u, Won 36u x   8,562 =   +308,232u ==> Net:   -7,272u
12-14-11: Bet 12u x 167,485 = -2,009,812u, Won 36u x  54,339 = +1,956,204u ==> Net:  -53,608u
14-12-11: Bet 12u x 430,143 = -5,161,716u, Won 36u x 139,594 = +5,025,384u ==> Net: -136,332u
15-11-11: Bet 11u x 358,612 = -3,944,732u, Won 36u x 107,135 = +3,856,860u ==> Net:  -87,872u
15-15- 7: Bet 15u x  14,336 =   -215,040u, Won 36u x   5,848 =   +210,528u ==> Net:   -4,512u
16- 5-16: Bet 16u x      39 =       -624u, Won 36u x      25 =       +900u ==> Net:     +276u
16-11-10: Bet 11u x 187,105 = -2,058,155u, Won 36u x  55,735 = +2,006,460u ==> Net:  -51,695u
16-15- 6: Bet 16u x     505 =     -8,080u, Won 36u x     228 =     +8,208u ==> Net:     +128u
16-16- 5: Bet 16u x      23 =       -368u, Won 36u x      10 =       +360u ==> Net:       -8u
17- 3-17: Bet 17u x       1 =        -17u, Won 36u x       1 =        +36u ==> Net:      +19u

Totals for the GREEN (good) bets only:

The total bet was 17,980,567u.
The total number of bets were 1,601,004 giving an average bet of 11.2308 units or numbers / bet.
The total number of hits were 487,125 hits, and that is +2.00SD (Standard Deviation calc'd on 11.2308-numbers bets).
Probability predicts 484,216 - 487,706 hits and the math average is 485,960.9655 hits (for 11.2308-numbers bets).

The total loss was 444,067u = -2.4697% of the total bet.
To be only 29u positive - smallest possible - there was a need of an additional 12,336 hits...


Good Luck JHM, and all.

Really.

[winkel]

Sorry KFS

i totally failed to argue my list.

I didn´t say that these crossings are the "ever-best"

I just wanted to say and failed:

There is always a fluctuation:
some crossings are winning
some are losing
some lose and win and lose and win

This is also in the long run to see.

These periods of wining and losing streaks are watchable and you can play on (or play not)

In a test like you did you collect all streaks wining and losing.
with my players Intelligence I try to avoid the losing ones.

Therefore we do following: check the Table to play on.
take the last 10 days, check crossings
take the last day (11th) check crossings

result: crossing x-x is winning in both : bet
result: crossing y-y is winning and yesterday it is losing (bet carefully!)
result: crossing z-z is losing in both : don´t bet
result: crossing a-a is losing and yesterday winning (bet carefully!)

works only at casinos like CC or Wiesbaden (and any other Casinos that give the spins of the day)

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

winkel,

So now we have to also use yesterday's results when we gamble today?
Is that what you mean?
Have you mentioned it somewhere in your GUT-thread?

How did you do that in your 10,000,000 spins test that ended in positive?
Wasn't the table you posted at page 2 the results of that test?
If not: Why did you post the table and say:

[highlight]this is my result[/highlight]
please read vom left to right
0; 1; >1; came up in 8.9 million 37spin-clusters; 0 hit in next spin; 1 hit; >1 hit; average of numbers to appear; did really appear
[highlight]all the green sectors are better than they should.[/highlight]

So what if they turn up more than they should as long as they LOSE MONEY?
What was the purpose of posting that table?
Can you please show us ONE piece of proof that your method ends up positive?
So far you have ONLY shown proof of the opposite.

I didn´t say that these crossings are the "ever-best"

Why didn't you post your "ever-best" crossings, then? Only ONE SINGLE ONE...
It must surely be the ones to use in your method - right?
Have you shown them in your GUT-thread (or somewhere else, maybe)?
If not: Are you going to? When?


If you have done a proper test (or a statistical study, for that matter) it cannot possibly take a lot more space to post than the results of my tests - like the tables on the first page in this thread. There simply are not more situations/triggers to show...
I, for one, think it would be really interesting to see those results-tables.
One thing though: Please include bets, hits and nets calculated in units - as that is what is put on the table.

Why do you always post proof that your method is losing and not the winning proof you claim to have?


Regards,
KFS


PS.
Everyone watch out this weekend!
I will give you my "Brick-and-Mortar GUT-tracker"
Yes; a tracker to use inside casinos and they will ALLOW IT!
(Actually: They provide it... )

[winkel]

let me explain it with this



this is the crossing only at one single position at spin 37 only

we start with any bet 0vs or 1vs>1 and control L/W
at about the 10th bet we see that "1"s win and go betting steady on this crossing
at about bet 20 we notice losing and better performance of 0vs1
til spin 55 we have a win-loss-win-loss-win-loss situation we don´t mind about but are carefully watching
then the "1" are performing better so we change to them.
at bet 79 the "0" cross the "1" and we start betting them

so we go on analysing every single crossing we only bet crossings with a trend of rising or sideways.

by a harddisk corruption I lost all my datas so I can´t post the list of test-results.

I only can lead people to the way of playing it, but I cannot start with confusing lists of datas to be watched, I have to start with the simple steps of betting:
bet a crossing
watch what´s going on.


also you can´t carry books of lists to the casino and check every possible data, you wouldn´t be able to bet. therefore you need a "feeling" for whats going on.

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

winkel,

by a harddisk corruption I lost all my datas so I can´t post the list of test-results.

In Reply #98 in your own thread you said:

The data is not even on my computer it is the result of a test [highlight]done by three different computer-freaks[/highlight]

Please ask them... All three haven't had hard-drive crashes, have they?
Maybe they can re-run the test for you?

Was that a [highlight]test of your method-rules[/highlight] or was it a [highlight]statistical study[/highlight] of fixed situations - like the table you posted above?

*** If it was a test, you HAVE defined rules, for the program, that give a positive result - but you say you cannot.
*** If it was a statistical study I can do that anytime, but you claim above that it cannot show a positive result...
But you claim that the test ended in 163,345u positive...




But tell me, please, what I asked above:
What was so special with the green-marked triggers in your table that you had to tell us about them?
And why can't we see the figures for your "ever-best" triggers?

Regards,
KFS

PS.
The Brick-and-Mortar GUT-tracker is developing nice...

[TwoCatSam]

When I'm losing, I feel like brick and mortar is in my gut!

Can't wait to see this creation, KFS!


Sam

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Soon - it's on it's way...

You're going to laugh!

But it's no joke...
KFS

[winkel]

But tell me, please, what I asked above:
What was so special with the green-marked triggers in your table that you had to tell us about them?
And why can't we see the figures for your "ever-best" triggers?

Hi KFS,

there is nothing special with that triggers. The green marks just show that there are always some triggers that appear more often than others.
And please notice: this is not constantly. some of the green might have turned to losing. some of the not marked might have turned to winning.

When you look at the my charts you will see there are long streaks of winning or losing. I bet or don´t when the trend is turning.

Maybe the double-crossing-possibility is not clear enough so I will give another chart with a single opportunity:



this is crossing 14 14 9 at position spin 37

as you see a bet on R or "0" is losing constantly: conclusion: I dont bet this crossing on spin 38
this you can easily repeat on every crossing at any position.

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

winkel,

I think you are a strange person...

When you posted the table, you wrote:

[highlight]this is my result[/highlight]
please read vom left to right
0; 1; >1; came up in 8.9 million 37spin-clusters; 0 hit in next spin; 1 hit; >1 hit; average of numbers to appear; did really appear
[highlight]all the green sectors are better than they should[/highlight].

Now you write:

there is nothing special with that triggers.

So; as a reply to me you post an essentially useless / worthless table...
I find that a bit strange...


Please answer:
Was your 10,000,000 spins test that ended positive 163,345u...
... a [highlight]test of your method-rules[/highlight] or was it...
... a [highlight]statistical study of fixed situations[/highlight] - like the table you posted above?

*** If it was a rules-test, you have defined rules for the program, that give a positive result - but you say you cannot because of human decisions...
*** If it was a statistical study I can do that anytime, but you claim above that it cannot show a positive result...

But you claim that the test ended in 163,345u positive...
How did you come to that figure?


(And what about your "ever-best" triggers - will you ever reveal them?)

Have a nice weekend,
I really have to log-out now.
KFS

[winkel]

... a statistical study of fixed situations - like the table you posted above?

more or less it has been this.

The way it was done I tried to explain above. sorry if I couldn´t express what I mean. My brains are damaged by illnes.

(And what about your "ever-best" triggers - will you ever reveal them?)

see my try above: there is no "ever best" there are only long streaks of winning or losing.

br
winkel

[rev]

  '(Winkel sorry to burst your bubble,but this method doesn't beat the house edge,IF you where to bet after a hit ,this may help a little.I can justify my claim as I tested this method many moons ago, and I still have a similar code,It was discussed over at V.I.P.and coded as Hitters v's Sleeper's.I would suggest you retry and use after a hit rather than having no entry point and changing your mind to fit the curve good luck -You'll need it.

[winkel]

Hi rev,

statements like yours I love most.

1. I don´t bet after a hit. This may happen but it´s accidently.
2. What did you test? the G.U.T? I bet you didn´t
3. I´m convinced you´re not knowing what we talk about.
4. Hitters vs sleepers is what I did a revolution on. I put in a third kind of watched signature

Please read first the topic and then you´re comments are welcome.

br
winkel

[rev]

Hi Winkel -I tested 18 numbers unhit against 18 numbers that hit-bet selection =before a hit,You call it a cross over??I have looked at Kon fu's explanation an it's clear enough,  he does'nt dress a method up in fancy type .There's no advantage here Infact no one here can offer a half descent betting  opportunity .you can say your approach is different but we both know the result's keep stringing them on.lol    

[winkel]

Hi Winkel -I tested 18 numbers unhit against 18 numbers that hit-bet selection =before a hit,You call it a cross over??I have looked at Kon fu's explanation an it's clear enough,  he does'nt dress a method up in fancy type .There's no advantage here Infact no one here can offer a half descent betting  opportunity .you can say your approach is different but we both know the result's keep stringing them on.lol    

Just another pain in the ass. Why don´t you go back to V.I.P (and please take herb with you)
Than you can tell each other every day and every minute that nothings gonna beat the house-edge.

no regards

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

winkel,

You wrote:

sorry if I couldn´t express what I mean. My brains are damaged by illnes.

PLEASE take all the time you need to express yourself clearly - should you decide give a reply.

It's always better to give a clear answer after a while, than a blurry and quick one.
[highlight]There is no hurry[/highlight] - I will not nag at you.


You wrote:

The way it was done I tried to explain above.

Where are you trying to explain how to end a computerized test in positive?
I think there are only three posts that can be in question...

Do you mean in reply #20?
You say that there are THREE POSSIBLE moves W-W..., W-L-W-L-W-L and L-L-L-L.
I thought there was an almost infinite number...
That cannot even be remotely regarded as an attempt for an explanation of how to end a test in positive figures. Can it?

Or maybe in reply #48?
There is a diagram of some sort (showing one particular session, I think) and you also say that you have lost the test-result data.
Do you use the ONE-session diagram to show how the 10,000,000 test could end positive?
No explanation in there. Or?

Can it be reply #52?
You show another diagram, now of one single crossing and also say that the "green" triggers in the table you posted may turn into losing triggers...
So I guess you just want to show that the trigger in this diagram ALSO can become a losing trigger...
But that's not an explanation ... I think...?

You claim that it is possible to end positive... But no explanation of HOW... That I can find...

You gave me the "clinical rules" that you have [highlight]claimed several times will end positive[/highlight].
But it didn't in any of the four tests - and you said:

what did you expect? [highlight]that I tell straight away it will lose?[/highlight]

So you know that the clinical way is a long-term loser, then...?

____________________________

You say that you have lost your test-results due to a hard-drive crash...

But you DO post a lot of data in tables and diagrams - do they come from OTHER TESTS then...?
And you say that the table above, with the green triggers, was NOT part of the 10,000,000 spins test that ended 163,345u positive.
But to me it seems just like an output from just such a ("more or less") statistical study.

So it seems - at least to me - like you have done MORE THAN ONE 10,000,000 spins test / statistical study ("more or less").
And so I wonder: Why not simply re-run the POSITIVE test - or ask the three computerfreaks to do it?

I mean; you should do that instead of running NEW and NEGATIVE tests, as [highlight]you know how to come out positive[/highlight]?

And if you have made ONLY ONE TEST I'm really curious about the origin of the table with the green triggers, and why you posted it with the words

"[highlight]this is my result[/highlight]"
and
"[highlight]all the green sectors are better than they should[/highlight]",

But when you were told that it was a losing result you changed your mind: It was no longer your results!

Now all of a sudden it was [highlight]NOTHING SPECIAL[/highlight]...

____________________________

You say that your positive test was MORE OR LESS a statistical study:

How does it differ? Exactly, please.
Please: Take all the time you need to express yourself correctly. We are NOT in a hurry.

Peter (who writes the test-programs for me) has shown you and everyone that he is able to do the test for you.
He is also willing to do it - if it doesn't end up -2.7%, that is.
So please give a [highlight]TRUE description[/highlight] of how to make a computerized "more or less" statistical 10,000,000 spins study that will end 163,345u positive.
Or just [highlight]positive anything[/highlight], unit-wise, would be nice.

Again: Please, take all the time you need to express yourself correctly.

____________________________

But honestly - this is my GUT-feeling about all this:

There is no 10,000,000 spins "more or less" statistical study that really [highlight]ends 163,345u positive[/highlight], if calculated correctly.

The 163,345u-figure comes from a [highlight]miscalculation[/highlight] of a statistical study you made in Excel and posted a part of above ([highlight]the "green-trigger" table[/highlight]).

When you found that some of the hit% - the ones you marked green - [highlight]were above average[/highlight] you got happy and excited.

Due to this excitement you simply forgot that "[highlight]hit above average in %[/highlight]" doesn't always means "[highlight]give a positive net result in units[/highlight]".

And so you calculated the NET WINS for the EXCESS HITS (there's the miscalculation) and ended up [highlight]+163,345u[/highlight].

And because of this, you actually believed that you had a winning method. (Yes; I really think so, because I don't think you're a bad person)

Because of your excitement over the positive net, coupled with your belief, you just forgot to run it on another sample and make tests of rules.

That would explain why the "clinical rules" failed in all of my four long-term tests.

Only after I showed that the %-winning (green) triggers were losing units-wise, you actually re-ran the Excel-sheet and found out the truth.

And that would explain why you suddenly changed your mind about the table from being "[highlight]my result[/highlight]" to being "[highlight]nothing special[/highlight]".



So this is my conclusion after the last few weeks in this GUTter:

You have NO method that WILL end correctly programmed, 10,000,000 spins, "more or less" statistical studies [highlight]anywhere in the positive.[/highlight]
Let alone the +163,345u you claim.
And you know it.

[highlight]But you actually DIDN'T know it before October 20.[/highlight] (Yes; I really think so, because I don't think you're a bad person)


If you, on the other hand, show such a method and prove my conclusion wrong I hereby, as everyone can see now, promise that in public...
* I will make all apologies due to you
* I will take back every negative word I've said to and about you
* I will take back the conclusion I made after the test (at page 1)
* I will of course take back the conclusion I made above
* I will acknowledge everything you've said about your method
* And I will - if you allow me - be your #1 supporter, showing in count-less examples and tests that you are correct


Until then, I have nothing to add regarding this "look at independent numbers being distributed" method.
And I will not.

So if the method isn't shown, this is my absolutely last post regarding this GUT-testing matter - don't expect a reply to anything but that.

[highlight]Everything I have to say is already said.[/highlight]
(Twice, I think)


Take all the time you need, winkel.
KFS

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

-